Jacob Meuser
Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:41:41 -0800
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 04:09:54PM -0800, John Sechrest wrote: > So.. you would choose to learn an editor that was complex because > it had the ability to give you leverage. Both VI and Emacs > support automation at one level or another. > > Nano/pico/whatever don't.
which is why I use mg. simple, with _some_ amenities. > I have watched people type in and edit lists of names over > again to make them in the right formate, when if they had > used emacs/vi and regular expressions, they would have > been done in 5 minutes. or they could have used sed or perl, no? or maybe they could have written their own toolkit of simple scripts? > So the reason that you look at tools outside of your current > tool is to find the places that people are effective and > to gain some of that efficiency for yourself. > > If you can't want to gain it, fine... But don't be upset when > others start being more effective... I was not complaining about anything of the sort. I merely don't like the fact that emacs does things that I don't want it to, apparently by default. anyway, I still use old computers. emacs is a bloated pig. in the time I wait for emacs to start up, I can be done with mg. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list euglug@euglug.org http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug